Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

THEIN v. TRUMP

District of ColumbiaSparkle L. SooknananDecided January 23, 2026No. 1:25-cv-02369

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Department of State Read by a model
Counts four, five, six, and seven of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint aver that the Department of State’s delay in adjudicating the Plaintiffs’ DV-2025 applications was unlawful.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
After attending their DV-2025 interviews with consular officials at their respective embassies, eighteen of the Plaintiffs were issued DV-2025 visas, while the other eighty-four Plaintiffs’ applications were placed in so- called “administrative processing.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court ordered the Secretary of State to “undertake good-faith efforts, directly and through his designees, to expeditiously process and adjudicate the Plaintiffs’ applications that are currently in administrative processing by September 30, 2025.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Dismiss and denies the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16, and denies the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 45.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Dismiss and denies the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claims alleging that the Defendants unlawfully delayed adjudicating their DV-2025 visas are moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claims alleging that the Defendants unlawfully delayed adjudicating their DV-2025 visas are moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claims alleging that the Defendants unlawfully delayed adjudicating their DV-2025 visas are moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Complaint’s challenge to Proclamation 10949 must be dismissed.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claims alleging that the Defendants unlawfully delayed adjudicating their DV-2025 visas are moot.
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
The Plaintiffs are nationals of Afghanistan, Burma, Togo, Somalia, or Iran.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10949 Read by a model
Those counts challenge the Department of State’s reliance on Proclamation 10949 and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to suspend adjudication of or deny the Plaintiffs’ visa applications.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
THEIN v. TRUMP August 21, 2025 Sparkle L. Sooknanan Granted in part
THEIN v. TRUMPThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted January 23, 2026 Sparkle L. Sooknanan Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02369
Filed
July 22, 2025
Ended
January 29, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
191 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.